Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation behavior: it returns exactly one page and paging is keyset-based, with next_cursor fed back as start_cursor. It does not cover rate limits or ordering defaults beyond what the schema states.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and how to scope it, followed by endpoint and paging notes. No filler; every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some return-shape burden; it partially covers this by noting a single-page, keyset-paged response. Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, it is nearly complete, though the comment object's shape and default sort order are left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds light value by pairing commentable_type enum examples with commentable_id and by clarifying the next_cursor/start_cursor loop, but does not enrich beyond that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List comments left on records') and immediately clarifies the scoping model (comments attached to a parent record via commentable_type + commentable_id). An agent can distinguish it from the write-side sibling fleetio_add_comment at a glance.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains how to scope results ('Filter by the record') and how to page, which implies intended usage, but it names no alternative tools and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Adequate but leaves routing to the agent's inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.